Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

I put the problem squarely with SNPs short sighted policy on ruling out everything but renewable energy, another of Salmonds dreams.
And we know what happens with them. Many people in the business have been advising for years it is a flawed policy.

Even the expert professor article Shakey links to, suggests the same thing if you read it properly .

I posted the link so you could read it all properly. I wasn't trying to hide anything so don't start nipping.

There are many pro's and con's for basing an energy policy on renewables. Germany has done exactly the same ( and is also struggling at the moment with the transitional issues ).. but that doesn't mean it's short sighted.

Ms. Merkel, who ordered Germany's accelerated exit from nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster in 2011, has declared the Energiewende both a major contribution in the battle against global warming and a historic step toward ending the world's reliance on nuclear power.
"No country of Germany's scale has pursued such a radical shift in its energy supply," Ms. Merkel said in a speech earlier this year. "I'm convinced that if any country can successfully implement the Energiewende, it's Germany."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602

The Scottish Govt isn't alone in it's aims. Although there's no denying it's a challenging way of doing things.

skintmacflint

Was just keeping it real Shakey.

But would be pretty surprised if Germany ended up with the possibility of their lights going out due to lack of decent planning. They're normally a very precise , organised people and would expect them to have covered all future contingencies during the changeover. Used to work with them years ago.

Fortunately if the lights go out in Scotland, our wee household will get by , as we already have a generator, due to our location being subject to plentiful power cuts of long duration.

On a change of subject did you see Nanny Sturgeon on Question time, tonight? Nothing new there, much the same could be said for Labour I'm beginning to wonder if it's the company she's been keeping over a lifetime.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

skintmacflint wrote: »

Nanny Sturgeon

Glad to see it's catching on.

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Oh well, but whatever it is it seems to be working well for them at the moment. For the first time ever, support among women for the SNP is now higher than among men. I guess when Alex went.. the 'woman problem' the SNP had seems to have disappeared as well. .

Nannying is not appreciated by many, and there is a limit at which revolt happens. Particularly men. So Nanny needs to make sure she doesn't get carried away with herself, or she'll face the opposite to Salmond.

The reduced alchohol limit policy isn't going down too well with many SNP voters who went for a quick pint after work in their favourite pub or after a round of golf. Nor for the bar staff who voted for them either.

Neither is the issue of allocated child guardians across the board until the age of 18.

And certainly not the rapid enactment of law to write off collection of long outstanding poll tax. Mind you seems as Salmond was the one shouting the loudest begging people not to pay it as they couldn't lock everyone up, it was the least he could do for his new supporters.

If as Salmond claims Scotland is this new enlightened politically engaged people , why do he and his party treat everyone as if they can't think , or take any responsibility for themself? The answer seems fairly obvious, because the bulk of his new supporters aren't.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Was just keeping it real Shakey.

But would be pretty surprised if Germany ended up with the possibility of their lights going out due to lack of decent planning. They're normally a very precise , organised people and would expect them to have covered all future contingencies during the changeover. Used to work with them years ago.

Fortunately if the lights go out in Scotland, our wee household will get by , as we already have a generator, due to our location being subject to plentiful power cuts of long duration.

On a change of subject did you see Nanny Sturgeon on Question time, tonight? Nothing new there, much the same could be said for Labour I'm beginning to wonder if it's the company she's been keeping over a lifetime.

Then you should read up a little more before commenting. There was a reason I mentioned Germany having 'transitional' struggles too.

I did catch a bit of Question Time as I forgot it was on till about 15 mins in. Nicola seemed perfectly fine to me. Heseltine got far more time than anyone else though. And Caroline Flint could barely contain her frustration at Nicola. Doesn't really matter though. Nicola doesn't really have to impress anyone in that audience in terms of votes. And didn't Caroline Flint know it just.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Nannying is not appreciated by many, and there is a limit at which revolt happens. Particularly men. So Nanny needs to make sure she doesn't get carried away with herself, or she'll face the opposite to Salmond.

The reduced alchohol limit policy isn't going down too well with many SNP voters who went for a quick pint after work in their favourite pub or after a round of golf. Nor for the bar staff who voted for them either.

Neither is the issue of allocated child guardians across the board until the age of 18.

And certainly not the rapid enactment of law to write off collection of long outstanding poll tax. Mind you seems as Salmond was the one shouting the loudest begging people not to pay it as they couldn't lock everyone up, it was the least he could do for his new supporters.

If as Salmond claims Scotland is this new enlightened politically engaged people , why do he and his party treat everyone as if they can't think , or take any responsibility for themself? The answer seems fairly obvious, because the bulk of his new supporters aren't.

'Reduced alcohol limit'... do you mean possible drunk driving after a round of golf and a few halfs ?

I also think the poll tax thing should be buried in the past where it belongs. England stopped historical collection of it years ago... why on earth do you think Scotland should be any different in terms of that ? We're talking debts from nigh on 30 years ago !

Again, please check facts before posting. No offence.

elantan

Not a huge Sturgeon fan, but I thought she did well on QT last night

skintmacflint

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Then you should read up a little more before commenting. There was a reason I mentioned Germany having 'transitional' struggles too.

I did catch a bit of Question Time as I forgot it was on till about 15 mins in. Nicola seemed perfectly fine to me. Heseltine got far more time than anyone else though. And Caroline Flint could barely contain her frustration at Nicola. Doesn't really matter though. Nicola doesn't really have to impress anyone in that audience in terms of votes. And didn't Caroline Flint know it just.

Put simply. At present Scotland still has a diversified electricity supply, with enough surplus to export to England.

Come 2020 our system will be dominated by wind power .
When it's not windy or even too windy , Scotland will be dependant on imports from England, which in your opinion isn't a feasible option as they won't have enough to spare. When there is enough wind we will be generating a huge surplus, with nowhere to export , but still incurring huge costs as it has to be paid for AFAIK.

To me it seems a short sighted plan with our landscape being decimated for Salmonds dream, which could cost us dear.

Nicola certainly showed she has no need to impress voters outside of Scotland on QT. I do tend to agree Hesseltine was given more time to speak. Naughty Dimblelby was having a bit of fun with her. And she fell for it , hook , line and sinker.

Bearing in mind her opinion that even if Scotland votes Labour it still gets a Tory government, due to English votes. And her wish for SNP to be in an agreement with a Labour led governemnt , do you not think it's a bit short sighted of her to drive any English voters considering Labour this time round to stick with the Tories.

Hope she keeps up her good work each time she's screened nationally.

Shakethedisease

skintmacflint wrote: »

Put simply. At present Scotland still has a diversified electricity supply, with enough surplus to export to England.

Come 2020 our system will be dominated by wind power .
When it's not windy or even too windy , Scotland will be dependant on imports from England, which in your opinion isn't a feasible option as they won't have enough to spare. When there is enough wind we will be generating a huge surplus, with nowhere to export , but still incurring huge costs as it has to be paid for AFAIK.

To me it seems a short sighted plan with our landscape being decimated for Salmonds dream, which could cost us dear.

It could, but on the other hand it may make Scotland self-sufficient on clean, renewable energy and still a net exporter by simply putting the investments in now. As other countries such as Germany are doing. There are a lot of English power stations due to close too. And isn't a lot already imported from France anyway ? I guess the UK as a whole then may have a bit of a problem in terms of medium term energy policies.

Nicola certainly showed she has no need to impress voters outside of Scotland on QT. I do tend to agree Hesseltine was given more time to speak. Naughty Dimblelby was having a bit of fun with her. And she fell for it , hook , line and sinker.

Bearing in mind her opinion that even if Scotland votes Labour it still gets a Tory government, due to English votes. And her wish for SNP to be in an agreement with a Labour led governemnt , do you not think it's a bit short sighted of her to drive any English voters considering Labour this time round to stick with the Tories.

Hope she keeps up her good work each time she's screened nationally.

By concentrating on Nicola, I'm afraid you have discounted the other members of the panel and their own comments. Some of which didn't go down too at all well. In fact, there was an upsurge in new SNP registrations last night afterwards. Woeful uninformed comments from Heseltine insisting that Scots took 'British' money and Norman Lamb horrified at the thought that democratically elected Scots MP's might have a say in Westminster.

Sure, we're allowed Scots Labour, Lib Dem and Tory MP's in there voting on so called 'English only issues' no problem with that... but not SNP ones.. Which may be a slight problem if most of Scotland send SNP MP's down. Don't you agree ?

Nicola must have been laughing herself silly all the way back to the airport. The rest of the panel showed us all exactly what they think. And showed themselves up. Most of the comments I read today were actually on the other panel members... Made me laugh anyway.

Meanwhile, I committed the tragic error of watching a bit of BBC’s Question Time, a programme which bears the same relationship to an understanding of Scottish politics as nailing your s*****m to a plank with rusty nails does to foreplay. Never again, is all I will say, and I only watched a few minutes of it. Question Time all by itself demonstrates why Scotland needs a strong voice in Westminster, because we sure as hell don’t have one just now. And there was us thinking that we were all better together and a happy family of nations in this sceptred isle.

"Scotland, you are LOVED. You are RESPECTED. You are a VALUED part of our United Kingdom. PLEASE stay. Stay until all the seas gang dry. Oh good, you've stayed. By the way, just so there's no misunderstanding over this - WE MAKE THE DECISIONS AROUND HERE. No, seriously, Scotland - SHUT UP."

.string.

Referring to the Longannet business:

Shakethedisease wrote:

Perhaps the article in the Telegraph provides a clue.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11418721/Scotland-could-rely-on-England-to-keep-the-lights-on.html

I think the point is being missed here. One of the many benefits of Scotland being in the UK is that when things are done on a UK basis then the load is spread and the risk reduced, and this applies to Electricity Supply as well as other things (like currency for example). So the risk of any electricity interruption in Scotland is the same as other parts of the UK in England and Wales simply because we have a nation-wide contingency planning. It would ony be of importance uniquely to Scotland if the mindset was just about Scotland being self-contained; in other words an obsessed separatist mindset.

Ofgem has to take the whole of this Island into account. This is self evident really and probably accounts for Mr Cable being a bit bemused by the Scotland-centric remarks.

It remains difficult with my limited patience, expertise and skills to get anything absolutely definite on this but I have unearthed a report which purports to deal with the matter of Energy security: It is The Statutory Security of Supply Report 2014 which is the latest one (*). In that report please refer to Annex A, I don't recommend reading all of it - that would try anyone's patience a tad too far.

That report was written at a time when the potential closure of Longannet plant was a commonly known possibility (it had been talked about before the Report was finished and the report takes potential plant closures into account).

The report indicates that there will be a peak of demand next winter but concludes that measures are in place to mitigate any threat to consumers, including a hierarchy of emergency measures to ensure that domestic customers do not suffer.

The large charges that concern Scottish Power do not just relate to transmission as I had assumed but also reflect a UK-wide policy to site power generation plants close to major sites of population and industry (aka demand). This is basically to have an affordable electricity supply for everyone. Discussions have taken place and those charges will reduce in 2016 (as far as I can understand it). That said I would assume, contrary to what I had written before, that since the location of wind farms and other geographically-influenced facilities, that the above policy would be modified for them.

(*) In the report it is mentioned that there is no need for future reports of the above type. I cannot think that is the whole story. If I was involved in that I would insist on at least a summary status of such a strategic issue every 3 months, so maybe it is just a change over to a different report format. I could not see that (or missed it).